State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs 2. Reliance General Insurance Company ... on 6 July, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.344 of 2011 Date of Institution: 09.03.2011 Date of Decision: 06.07.2012 1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.147, 148, Ist Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager. 2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 19 Reliance Centre, Watchland Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038 through its Manager/Authorised Signatory Anil Dhiru Bai Ambani Group, Ist Floor, SCO 208, Sector 14, Panchkula, Haryana. Appellants (Ops) Versus Gover Lal son of Sh. Babu Ram, Resident of Village Dayalgarh, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Ms. Jaimini Tiwari, Advocate for Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for appellant. Shri Raman Gaur, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
Opposite Parties (appellants herein) have preferred this appeal against the order dated 06.01.2011 passed by District Consumer Forum, Yamuna Nagar in complaint bearing No.980/2007 which relates to insurable benefits in respect of insured vehicle bearing registration No.HR02P-6069 which damaged in an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy issued by opposite parties.
Undisputed facts of the present case are that the aforesaid vehicle was insured with the opposite parties for the period 17.05.2007 to 16.05.2008. On 01.06.2007 the vehicle damaged in an accident. DDR No.12 dated 5.6.2007 was registered with the police. On being informed to the appellants-opposite parties, Shri M.L. Garg, Surveyor was deputed to assess the loss of the vehicle who after inspecting the vehicle prepared the estimate of expenses likely to be incurred on the repairs of the vehicle to the extent of Rs.6,13,224.32. However, it was a case of total loss. The vehicle was insured with the opposite parties for Rs.4,26,824/- . Shri M.L. Garg, had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,74,633/- on repair basis after applying the relevant depreciation clause and submitted report dated 02.08.2007. The complainant demanded the insurable benefits of the vehicle on total loss basis whereas the opposite parties were offering the payment of Rs.1,74,633/- as per report dated 2.8.2007 of the surveyor subject to furnishing of necessary bills and other documents to which the complainant did not agree. Forced by these circumstances, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing complaint.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement wherein they took the above stated ground and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Forum accepted complaint and issued following direction:-
Accordingly we hold that services rendered by respondents are highly deficient and accordingly we accept the present complaint with cost of Rs.5000/- and direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.4,26,464/- the IDV value of the vehicle alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum interest with monthly rests as usually charged by the bank w.e.f. 1.8.2007 to till actual payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.11236/- towards amount paid by the complainant to Khanna Car Plaza Ltd. for getting the vehicle examined fees ascertaining the estimate of damaged vehicle. The respondents are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.100/- per day w.e.f. 1.8.2007 to till the actual payment of the amount payable by the respondent to the complainant under this order. The respondent is also directed to take the possession of the damaged vehicle from the complainant. The complainant is also directed to complete the formalities for transfer of vehicle in the name of respondent at the time of receipt of payment from the respondent. The complainant shall not have any claim whatsoever with the said salvage of damaged vehicle. Compliance be made within a period of 30 days failing which complainant is at liberty to get the award enforced in accordance with law.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties have come up in appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
On behalf of the appellants it is contended that the District Forum has ignored the report of the surveyor whereby the expected loss of the vehicle on repair basis was assessed at Rs.1,49,633/- + Rs.25,000/- = Rs.1,74,633/-. It is further contended that as per report of the surveyor, the body shell has been shown as repairable and now-a-days, the replacement of complete body shell of the vehicle is not compulsory as various child parts like doors, bonnet, panel apron chassis etc are individually replaceable with new parts as per manufacturer norms.
From the record it is established that there was complete damage of the body shell of the vehicle and estimated loss of which was assessed at Rs.1,48,557.86. Admittedly, after the accident the car was handed over to M/s Khanna Car Plaza Pvt. Ltd. on 06.06.2007 for repair and on receipt of information, the opposite parties had deputed Shri M.L. Garg, Surveyor to assess the loss to the vehicle. On the asking of surveyor, M/s Khanna Car Plaza Pvt. Ltd. had prepared an estimate about the repair of the car for which the complainant had paid rs.11,236/- to the workshop of M/s Khanna Car Plaza Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Khanna Car Plaza Pvt. Ltd. had prepared an estimate of Rs.6,13,224.32 . As per the estimate prepared by M/s Khanna Car Plaza Pvt. Ltd., the car was not repairable and it was a case of total loss of the vehicle. However, at the same time it has to be kept in mind that the vehicle was insured for Rs.4,26,864/- and therefore, the complainant cannot be compensated beyond the insured amount. Thus, under the facts and circumstances of the case we feel that the complainant has rightly been awarded Rs.4,26,864/- i.e. the insured amount. However, at the same time we do not subscribe with the compensation of Rs.100/- per day awarded to the complainant w.e.f. 1.8.2007 till the actual payment to the complainant which is virtually against the Consumer Protection Act in view of the judgment rendered in case cited as National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Keshwav Bahadur and others reported in 2004 ACJ 648. Accordingly, awarding of compensation of Rs.100/- per day which is totally arbitrary, uncalled for and unwarranted in the eyes of law is set aside. However, no interference with respect to the remaining part of the impugned order passed by the District Forum.
Hence, this appeal is partly accepted with the modification in the impugned order on the terms indicated above and stands disposed of accordingly.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal and Rs.3,58,850/- deposited on 25.04.2011 in view of the order dated 28th March, 2011 passed by this Commission, be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 06.07.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member